Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, repeatable lookup profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the accept format (id or URL) and a list of returned fields; it says nothing about rate limits, error behavior for a missing/invalid id, or auth requirements. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler: the first states what is retrieved and what it contains, the second states when to use it and what input shapes are accepted. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, single-id lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (dates, venue/address, prices, teachers, organizers, level, languages), which is exactly the information an agent needs to judge relevance. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents "Event id (e.g. 'W27r'), its slug, or its citreasurehunt.com URL." The description's mention of id/URL acceptance restates this, adding the example format but no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full listing of one event") and enumerates the fields returned (dates, venue, description, prices, teachers, organizers, level, languages). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tools by noting it is used after search_events rather than for searching, so an agent can tell it apart from search_events/get_venue/get_teacher without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the two entry conditions: after search_events, or when the user supplies a citreasurehunt.com event link. It names the sibling that precedes it. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. that this is not a bulk/multi-event tool), so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.